robert goldstein

<blockquote>

<p>I am using a Mac system (Mountain Lion) and CS6<br />I am unable to select the ABW Driver if i let PhotoshopManage Colors. I have to let the Printer Manage Colors to get access to the ABW Driver.<br />Am I right in saying that I need to convert my document from Pro Photo down to Adobe RGB 1998 just before I Print with the ABW Driver ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The latest Epson ABW drivers for Lion and Mountain Lion specifically require "printer manages color". This makes it impossible to use an ICC profile or to perform soft proofing. For the most part, the results are very good, but it does mean that ABW is something of a black box. You don't know what you are going to get until it comes out of the printer. I have started using ImagePrint, which does have specific gray profiles for zillions of papers and does allow soft proofing (within Photoshop, if you so desire). I think that the results are better than what I was previously able to get printing with Adobe/Epson, but ImagePrint is expensive, especially if you have a large printer.<br /> <br /> If you insist on soft proofing your B&W images, you can keep them in RGB and use an appropriate profile. It is my understanding that there are certain advantages to ABW, such as higher Dmax, but they may not be enough to matter in most instances. Run your own tests to find out.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>Miserere,</p>

<p>Actually, I don't think it is fair to expect the same level of functionality from a compact camera as you would from a full size dSLR. As for your review being perceived as having a somewhat negative slant, I think that is because your annoyance with the camera's weaknesses comes across more strongly than your satisfaction with its strengths.</p>

<p>As for image samples that I have reviewed, there are quite a few on Steve Huff's website and on Flickr as well. Steve is a big-time Leicaphile, and his standard of comparison is an M9. Of course, these are, for the most part, not full-size image files, but they do give a strong impression of what the camera is capable of producing. As I mentioned previously, the GXR A12 sensor is one generation behind that in the K-5, so it cannot deliver quite the same DR or high ISO performance. But there is no question whatsoever as to the outstanding image quality that the A12 modules can produce, and all from a very small package. That is what makes it special. The GXR is not for everyone, but it does have a lot to offer.</p>

<p>Steve Huff's review of the GXR: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/12/02/the-ricoh-gxr-digital-camera-review-with-the-28mm-and-50mm-modules/ In the comments section, he makes reference to the K-5.</p>

<p>Steve Huff again: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/12/05/more-from-the-ricoh-gxr-and-28-f2-5/</p>

<p>Compared to Leica X1: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/12/13/quick-comparison-ricoh-gxr-28mm-vs-leica-x1/</p>

<p>Compared to Sony NEX-5: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/11/29/quick-comparison-ricoh-gxr-vs-sony-nex-5/</p>

<p>Rob</p>

I might add to my comments above that the GXR is not intended to serve as a full substitute for a dSLR, but rather as

a supplement to one. Thus it is entirely fair to compare it to other high end compact cameras, such as the Leica X1,

the Fujifilm X100 and the Sony NEX. From all that I have seen, the GXR can easily a match any of them in terms of

IQ and is certainly more versatile than the X1 and the X100. The NEX is versatile but is also regarded by some as an ergonomic mess. Still, it is less expensive, and I expect that one could adapt to using it.

Rob

Sanford Gerald , Jul 12, 2011; 03:18 p.m.

"I think that this is a case of a superior photographer making a good camera look like a great camera."

I had never heard of the GXR prior to Ricoh's acquisition of Pentax, but ever since, I have developed an intense

interest in this compact camera system. I have read every review that I could find online (including one here on

photo.net by Josh Root) and have looked at many dozens of images, especially from the two A 12 APS-C modules.

Admittedly, this is not a substitute for hands-on experience, but nevertheless, I have come away with a distinctly more

positive impression than the one rendered by MM in his review. Most reviewers have found the GXR to be both quirky

and highly innovative. Almost universally, they give it high marks for ergonomics and build quality. Output from the

two A 12 units is not merely good, but excellent. Steve Huff rates the IQ as superior to that of his K-5 with a Limited

lens, and he loves his K-5. My own viewing of images on Huff's site and elsewhere leads me to believe that the GXR

can hold it's own against almost any APS-C dSLR, and this is with a sensor that is of an earlier generation than the

one in the K-5.

It is true that the GXR has met with limited commercial success and that few people outside of Japan have ever seen

one, let alone held one in their hands. To be sure, it is far from a perfect product and could stand improvements in

several areas, most notably in AF and in speed of writing to the memory card. It could also benefit from a better EVF,

especially one that is integral to the body. Nevertheless, Ricoh deserves credit for sticking their neck out to build a

unique and high quality compact camera system that can produce dSLR quality images. Whether the GXR will survive

the union of Ricoh and Pentax is anyone's guess at this time. Personally, I hope that it does and that Ricoh devotes considerable resources into developing it further and marketing it more cleverly and aggressively, but I certainly would not bet on that happening.

Rob

Robin,

In theory, you are correct, but in reality, pixel density is almost always inversely proportional to sensor size. For

example, there are now numerous small sensor pocket cameras with 12MPs. As sensor technology improves,

designers will be packing ever more pixels closer together, but we can always expect higher pixel density on smaller

sensors, simply to achieve greater resolution.

Getting back to the point about focal length and effective angle of view, if pixel density were kept constant, then there

would be no true multiplier effect associated with smaller sensors, but it isn't, so there is.

Rob

"I must correct the common misconception that a smaller sensor somehow gives you longer telephoto lenses. It does

not, since the sensor cannot change the lens at all. What it does instead is produce a resulting image as if you had

taken a centre crop of a larger sensor. The rest of the information delivered by the lens is simply discarded.

There is no image quality advantage whatsoever to shooting a smaller sensor. (All else being equal of course.)

Advantages are instead potential reduced cost and the smaller size of the resulting camera system. These are very

real incentives for many people."

This is just plain wrong. You are confusing angle of view with resolution. It might help you to think in terms of film.

For any given focal length, a lens subtends an angle of view that is proportionate to the size of the film frame. Thus,

50mm is considered a normal lens in 35mm format, whereas it is a wide angle lens in medium format and an even

wider angle lens in large format. With film, the resolution of the "sensor" is the same

regardless of size, so you really could just crop a MF frame to get the identical angle of view and resolution as a

35mm frame. With digital sensors, however, pixel density is generally greater with smaller size, so the narrower angle of view is

being projected onto more pixels, which translates into higher resolution than if you simply cropped a FF image. You

may argue that the smaller pixels on an APS-C sensor are inferior to those on a FF sensor, which is true. Nevertheless, the IQ from the latest APS-C cameras is nothing short of excellent and can serve the needs of all but the most demanding photographers. It will only get better in the future. (Sorry, I really don't want this to become a FF vs. APS-C thread, but the post that I quoted demands a mild response.)

Rob

I just want to clarify that Eric Chan creates custom profiles both for color and ABW. I do not know whether he does

this for Epson printers only or for any brand. I can attest to the quality of his profiles on my 3880.

Rob

<p>I agree with Jeff that you should find a lab that uses ink jet printers. Generally speaking, latest generation ink jets are superior to other digital printers, and the quality for B&W is especially excellent.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Remember when you use ABW and print from Photoshop you do not need a profile to get good result.. i mean in Photoshop prior to CS5 you should select NO COLOR MANAGEMENT in Photoshop, then ABW in the epson driver. I also add in the advanced menu beside the color wheel 3 and 3 in the horizontal and vertical white boxes for most of the paper i use.. i find the epson neutral to be a bit colder for my taste.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Patrick,</p>

<p>I find this very interesting, because it is directly at odds with Eric Chan's recommendations for printing with ABW but without profiles on his Epson 3800 website:</p>

<ol>

<li>Go to the File menu and choose <strong>Print with Preview...</strong> (CS2) or <strong>Print...</strong> (CS3 and CS4). In the box that comes up, set the Color Handling popup menu to <strong>Let Photoshop Determine Colors</strong> (CS2) or <strong>Photoshop Manages Colors</strong> (CS3 or CS4). </li>

<li> Set the Printer Profile menu to <strong>sRGB</strong> (the full name may appear as <strong>sRGB IEC61966-2.1</strong>). <strong><em>This step is very important!</em></strong>

<p><em>Technical note #1: If you are attempting to print from Lightroom to the ABW driver, then in this step you will need to choose "Other..." from the Profile popup menu and check the <strong>Include Display Profiles</strong> checkbox in the ensuing dialog box.</em><br>

<em>Technical note #2: why don't we specify a printer profile the same way we do when printing a RGB color image? Furthermore, in the previous section on printing RGB color images, weren't we specifically warned NOT to select a working space profile like sRGB? Good questions. The answer to the first question is that the ICC profiles that we normally use for printing color images are only designed to work with the Epson RGB color driver, not the Epson ABW driver. The answer to the second question is that the ABW driver is expecting to receive image data that is encoded with the sRGB gamma function (approximately a 2.2 gamma-encoding curve).</em></p>

</li>

<li> Set the Rendering Intent popup menu to <strong>Relative Colorimetric</strong>. </li>

</ol>

<p>Perhaps both methods can give good results, but I would not expect them to give the same results, unless "no color management" gives a gamma 2.2.<br>

What I am hearing from you and Andrew is that the <em>quality</em> of B&W prints is essentially the same, using either ABW or RGB.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>I am doing the conversions in Silver Efex Pro, so I do not rely on ABW for that part of the processing. I have used some of Eric Chan's ABW paper profiles, which seem to work reasonably well for soft-proofing, but he does not provide them for all papers. Does ABW do a better job than RGB with tonal separation at the time of printing?</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>I have an Epson 3880 and have been using the ABW driver for B&W prints. However, I always add a warm tone in the Advanced settings, meaning that it is not a pure B&W process. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to printing B&W from RGB color files with appropriate toning? </p>

<p>Rob</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dfine - great noise reduction, very intelligent. The ability to fine tune your noise reduction based on object/area very quickly is great. As noise reduction goes, it's as good or better than anything else out there....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but this is no longer true--if it ever was. Topaz DeNoise 4 has surpassed every noise reduction program currently available. The one unique feature of Dfine (other than local application via control points) is its de-banding function. This can be very useful for high ISO images that have band-like pattern noise. For such images, I first perform de-banding in Dfine and then remove the remaining noise with Topaz. The results are quite amazing.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>I have the complete Nik Suite and use all of the programs regularly. Quite honestly, I don't know how I ever got by without them. You can download free trial versions to see if you will like them. I cannot imagine that you will not.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>I have been having a problem with my 3880 leaving very fine linear scratches on the surface of Ilford Gold Fibre Silk paper. This only happens with 17x22 inch paper. The lines are parallel to the direction of the paper path. I have the platen gap set to "Wider" and the paper thickness set to 5. If there are no solutions, I would appreciate suggestions for other papers that may be more resistant to this type of scratching.</p>

<p>Thanks.<br>

Rob</p>

<p>Thanks to all for the suggestions. Keep them coming.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>I am headed for Death Valley in the first week of April 2010, and I would like recommendations for sites of particular photographic interest. Because of the El Nino rains, I anticipate a good wildflower season. I will be there for 3 days, and I will have a 4 wheel drive vehicle, so I am willing to go a bit off the beaten path, but I am not able to do any death-march hiking. Also, is a side trip to the Mojave Desert worth the time and effort?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Rob</p>

<p>As a follow-up to my own earlier response regarding drivers for the 5400, I saw a post somewhere on the net saying that the Dimage Scan driver does indeed run on Snow Leopard, but I cannot confirm this. Also, there is the option of SilverFast.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<blockquote>

<p>LR worked fine for me after I upgraded to Snow Leopard, although it doesn't seem real happy with Spaces, but that's another problem and doesn't obliterate files. However, when you point to a folder, the thumbnails that LR built seem to show up regardless of the presence of the original files, so the thumbnails are not an indicator. One way or another, you deleted or moved those files. LR can't do that without explicit instructions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>Even if this is so, when I explicitly tell LR where the folders reside, it still says that the individual files are missing or offline. Yet I know that the hard drive in question is mounted.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>Keith, the files are on a secondary internal HD. In the Library module, the files are recognized.</p>

<p>Jeff, I have pointed LR to the file locations, and they show up in the Library as they should. However, when I go into the Develop module, I get the message that the files are missing or offline.</p>

<p>Regarding synchronizing a folder, the onscreen message states that doing so will delete from the catalog all missing files. How will that solve my problem?</p>

<p>I might add, that this problem developed after I upgraded to Snow Leopard. AFAIK, Lightroom is supposed to be fully compatible.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would suggest that you post this question on the Capture One Forum. It is located in the Support section of the Phase One website.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>For some odd reason, Lightroom (both v 2.4 and 3 Beta) suddenly is unable to find files that it has previously imported. It shows the thumbnails and the Preview images, but when I try to edit in the Develop module, I get a message that the file is missing or offline. I have tried "Locate Missing Folder," but this does not correct the problem. </p>

<p>Help, please.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>Aaron,</p>

<p>As you have no doubt surmised, Lightroom is very popular on this forum. If you have massive DAM needs, LR (or Aperture) is an excellent choice. But I have found that I prefer the rendering qualities of Capture One 5 Pro. My images look better to my eye than they do with Lightroom 3 Beta, and I have done dozens of head-to-head comparisons. C1's interface is very intuitive, and adjustments are a snap. File organization, while not as sophisticated as that of the other two programs, is actually quite logical and straight forward.</p>

<p>So, I would recommend that if you have thousands of images and dozens of clients to juggle, definitely go with LR or Aperture. If your file management needs are more modest, give Capture One 5 Pro a try. The IQ is fabulous and noticeably different from LR.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>I do have the Nik Suite installed as plug-ins. I would hate to give them up, to be sure. This problem did not appear until I upgraded to Snow Leopard (and broke my own rule of not changing an OS, if everything is running well.) But before I did it, I researched the topic and could find no reports of incompatibility between CS3 and SL. On the Nik website, they mention some problems with their software and SL that can be corrected by deleting duplicate Arial font files, which I have done.</p>

<p>I am not totally averse to upgrading Photoshop to CS4, if that would fix the problem.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Recently, I posted the following question on this forum:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ever since I installed Snow Leopard on my MacPro Dual, CS3 has been doing weird things that I would describe as a "semi-stall." For instance, if I make a duplicate of a multi-layered image, the new image cannot be flattened, i.e. the "Flatten Image" command is grayed-out. Also, I cannot quit Photoshop without force quitting, which I have to do frequently in order to re-start it, so that it will work properly until the next semi-stall.<br>

Has anyone else encountered similar problems with CS3 and Snow Leopard? Are there any simple solutions? I am reluctant to upgrade to CS4 at this time with CS5 just around the corner, because I am leery of Adobe charging me for two upgrades.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew Rodney suggested that I discard the Photoshop CS settings, which I did and which I thought solved the problem. Unfortunately, it did not, and I am back where I started. Adobe's support suggested that I re-name the CS3 Prefs.psp file as CS3 Prefs.old, but that also did not work. I am waiting for their next suggestion. In the meantime, I would welcome any strokes of brilliance from the photo.net community.</p>

<p>Rob</p>

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>That worked. Thanks so much. You have saved me from a ton of aggravation.</p>

<p>Rob</p>